Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit

[Fatalbert]

Originally Posted by sulpfiction

I ONLY print wirelessly on my HP printer. Desktop, laptop, iPod, iPad, & iPhone all print wirelessly to the same printer via wifi without any problems. Ever.

Do you use a WEP or password-less network? Every single HP printer I use just sits trying to connect.

[Plutonius]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

Not really. For one thing, the DoJ doesn't do this for giggles. They bring complaints when they think the complaint is supported by the law.

It's just a personal opinion but I believe that Eric Holder and the DoJ are out of control (along with most of Washington). A discussion of the current DoJ probably belongs in the PRSI so I'll leave it at that.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

, with contracts between Apple and the publishers including language that prevented the publishers from offering lower pricing to competitors than they did to Apple.

Funny, they had no issue with Amazon was doing the same thing.

----------

Originally Posted by b0r1s

Being a UK citizen I'm not that well versed in US law, but I'm surprised how much Amazon's own self interests have been overlooked in this case.

Yes, Apple are in no way innocent, but Amazon using a monopoly strategy in the e-book market to further their own interests should be top of any law suit.

Amazon isn't Apple, doesn't get the press. So fewer folks know about Amazons stunts. DOJ doesn't want to point out their failure by bringing it up now

[somethingelsefl]

What I hope comes out of all this: Make my ePub books purchased through iTunes DRM-free or else I'll continue to purchase them elsewhere and side load them.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by prhammer

.

I love ebooks. They are convenient and don't require me to continually add bookshelves. But I have trouble paying more for an ebook than for a physical book which actually required additional resources to produce, warehouse and ship.

Look at it from the other side. There are lots of 'above the line' costs to producing a book before you even get into printing. The author payment, the editor etc. publishers have a right to recover those costs. Generally its during the initial 'hardcover' stage that they do this by having a slightly higher markup. Ebooks are hard to justify at a $25-35 a copy price so they are like half that. And they take away a potential hard cover sale that makes the publisher more money. Publishers get worried about breaking even much less making money. Particularly when you have someone like Amazon using the ebooks as a loss leader

And yet even then, Apple set a cap of like $14.99 in ebooks in the store. Or at least tried to originally (I believe the final cap was $19.99). Because they wanted to give publishers the control but not let them go nutty and price up to the hardcover to screw over consumers and make folks hate the iBooks store. But many books are well under that price. It's typically only the big names that go that high cause folks will buy the name. Everything else is the same $9.99 as amazon, give or take a couple of bucks, and has been since day one

----------

Originally Posted by Glenny2lappies

I can't delete the awful iBooks application from my iPad, but I have moved it out of the way. .

You might be the only person that can't. Because all downloaded apps can be deleted very easily.

----------

Originally Posted by mw360

Amazon seems ideologically committed to lowering prices to the absolute rock bottom. Nobody understands why. It sells cut price eReaders supposedly to sell more eBooks but it sells cut price eBooks to suppposedly sell more readers.

Loss leader to get folks to their site to buy other things.

----------

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

My sense is it's a slam-dunk, if only because the government rarely pushes these cases this far unless winning in court is virtually assured.

Until the court started excluding evidence. Then it became less certain. If the court should start cutting Jobs emails it will be game over since that's the only thing the DOJ has that even hits at collusion and even that's not cut and dry

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by Glenny2lappies

Apple have done their bit for anti-trust. iBooks is a horrible application that's truly awful to use. For a company that prides itself on usability, iBooks is the pits.

Skeuomorphism is the scourge of usability. It's a computer, not a book for goodness sake. It was kool back in the early 90's, but it's just plain awful now. Turning a page requires an uncomfortable gesture. The '3D' rendering of the page is just ugly.

I can't delete the awful iBooks application from my iPad, but I have moved it out of the way. Kindle -- which itself suffers from gross usability problems -- is much better. Similarly with Stanza.

The Skeuomorphism thing was Scott Forestall's baby. He was fired awhile back. I would expect to see an iBook revamp among others. Don't ask when, we're talking about Apple.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Plutonius

It's just a personal opinion but I believe that Eric Holder and the DoJ are out of control (along with most of Washington). A discussion of the current DoJ probably belongs in the PRSI so I'll leave it at that.

Based on what evidence? Are you actually a follower of antitrust law historically, or are you reaching this conclusion because this particular case involves Apple? Keep in mind, a similar case was brought by the EU, and is already settled. And all of the other parties in this case have also settled.

Or maybe the entire world is out of control. Always another rhetorical option.

[bsolar]

Originally Posted by b0r1s

B]Yes, Apple are in no way innocent, but Amazon using a monopoly strategy in the e-book market to further their own interests should be top of any law suit.

There is a misconception about that. Loss leading strategies are perfectly fine and Amazon is entitled to employ them to try to put its competitors out of business. What it's not entitled to do is to raise prices after the competition is actually out of business.

There cannot be a lawsuit on the mere assumption that Amazon in the future could abuse its monopoly and raise prices once the competitors are out, the fact has to actually happen first.

[Ironduke]

Tim a super Grass!

shirley not!

[SPUY767]

Originally Posted by prhammer

It would seem that Apple's argument is that Amazon's stranglehold on the market makes it ok for them to create a new reality that breaks Amazon's hold on the backs of the consumer. Ultimately the government protections should be in large part pointed towards the consumer, not protecting one of the richest companies in the world from lower profits than they would prefer. Bottom line is that since DOJ stepped in ebook prices have generally been lower. So I'm a fan.

The government's job is not to provide you with cheap stuff, and support a monopoly while with the other hand smacking down a non-monopoly competitor.

Originally Posted by Glenny2lappies

Turning a page requires an uncomfortable gesture.

Agreed. Tapping the right side of the page has proven almost impossible for me.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Originally Posted by mw360

Amazon are the villain. They've used their dominant position to bully book publishers into accepting outrageous terms. Those terms aren't for the benefit of customers. Their drive to to force eBook pricing at $10 or less is not because the poor oppressed people deserve $10 books. It so they have a tidy sales soundbite to drive customers away from physical books (where publishers can set their own terms) to the Kindle platform where Amazon's word is final. Basically Amazon are trying to control the entire concepts of books. They can't control the technology behind physical books, so they're trying to kill it in favour of their own. I find that pretty ugly and scary and hope they don't succeed.

Apple are the villain. They've used their dominant position to bully music publishers into accepting outrageous terms. Those terms aren't for the benefit of customers. Their drive to to force music pricing at fixed price points is not because the poor oppressed people deserve Apple-priced music. It so they have a tidy sales soundbite to drive customers away from CDs (where publishers can set their own terms) to the iTunes fairplay platform where Apple's word is final. Basically Apple are trying to control the entire concepts of music. They can't control the technology behind physical music, so they're trying to kill it in favour of their own. I find that pretty ugly and scary and hope they don't succeed.


Let me proactively guess: "music is totally different than books" and "what Apple did for the music industry was save it", etc.

The concept of the competitive nature of capitalism is to drive prices as low as possible for consumers. When the competition is thinned out and/or allowed to collude, this fundamental benefit (for all) breaks down and it flips into an exploitation-based relationship between seller & buyers (see the "big 3" dominated cell-phone industry). Apple did wrong here, as the play was to make Apple and book publishers much more money at the consumer's experience... not really do anything that delivered a greater benefit to those consumers.

Amazon has it's own issues but Amazon pricing- thinnest margins or not- is generally favorable for the consumers wanting to buy what Amazon sells. Capitalism in a pure form would have competitors beat Amazon at it's own game by finding some way to price things better than them... not by entering into agreements to put profits before doing what is best for consumers. If no one could find some way to beat Amazon's pricing in a competitive market, than the drive to best competitive-driven pricing had been perfected at Amazon (move along to another market if you can't compete).

If Amazon was accomplishing this by taking a loss, eventually the losses would pile up and Amazon would go out of business. Then the market would be free to compete anew in trying to find the ideal price points for products formally sold by Amazon. There would be no more lock-in with Kindle than there is lock-in with iDevices/iTunes. Even if Amazon or Apple managed 90% market share at a loss, eventually the losses would force them out of business or into raising prices to profitability. At that point, new competitors could step in and compete.

I look at Amazon and see a good competitor for Apple... someone to keep Apple in check. If I want to fantasize about some monopoly scenario where a company is going to ultimately fully own an important market and exploit consumers by ripping us off with monopoly-based pricing, I'd be much more worried if that company was Apple (which consistently demonstrates a fundamental focus on relatively fat profit margins, right off the top). If Apple ever got a monopoly hold on any market, I'd hate to see what Apple would do with it. Note: I own a lot of Apple products and like Apple just fine but I do know enough about this particular event to believe (IMO) that Apple was very much in the wrong for it's part in this. There was no tangible benefit for consumers in what Apple did here- just wins for Apple and the book publishers if they were able to get away with it long-term.

[sulpfiction]

Originally Posted by Fatalbert

Do you use a WEP or password-less network? Every single HP printer I use just sits trying to connect.

All password protected networks. My printer is about 2 years old, and works great. I believe I had a few issues with it disconnecting when I first got it which had something to do with my AP extreme. The problem was addressed via an update and ever since its been perfect. Are u sure all of ur software is current?

[Rmurphy36]

As a consumer, Steve Jobs screwed me with his coercion and still does. Instead of 9.99 books they are up to 15. Once he did that I vowed to never buy through iBooks. I would guess Amazon is making more money now then they did before because almost no new books are back to the 9.99 standard.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

True enough, but some valid cases they decline to prosecute, and some cases they stretch the law to actively prosecute them. Dude, that's politics.

Care to show me the list of the top 40 fines issued in each of the last 5 years by any "regulator" (executive branch)? Please?

Care to show them to me, dude? It would be helpful, since I have no idea what you are driving at or why you brought this up (especially since no fines have been levied in this case).

Care to show me any evidence that the law has been "stretched" in this case? A compare/contrast exercise with the EU case would also be helpful.

So, for a bit of historical perspective: consider that all of the really big antitrust cases in the U.S. happened 40, 50 or more years ago -- and the granddaddy of them all, 100 years ago. So in reality the clear trend in antitrust law enforcement is to bring smaller actions with fewer fines and less intrusive remedies. Like this one. Except for the eight years when the Antitrust Division of the DoJ essentially closed up shop, this trend continues.

[stockscalper]

Originally Posted by mw360

Such a simplistic view of the world. Whoever sells things cheap is the hero. Whoever dares make a profit is a thief. Sad that some people are so easily bought.

Amazon are the villain. They've used their dominant position to bully book publishers into accepting outrageous terms. Those terms aren't for the benefit of customers. Their drive to to force eBook pricing at $10 or less is not because the poor oppressed people deserve $10 books. It so they have a tidy sales soundbite to drive customers away from physical books (where publishers can set their own terms) to the Kindle platform where Amazon's word is final. Basically Amazon are trying to control the entire concepts of books. They can't control the technology behind physical books, so they're trying to kill it in favour of their own. I find that pretty ugly and scary and hope they don't succeed.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with making a profit. But when you conspire with your competitors to fix prices artificially high thereby thwarting the "free market" it's not only wrong, it's illegal. If Apple had done this 40 or 50 years ago they would be prosecuted. I find it ironic that the same crowd that always preaches the virtues of the "free market" are the ones defending Apple's restraint of the free market.

What Amazon was doing is an act of free market capitalism. And they were not alone. Every major ebook store was selling at lower prices including Sony, B&N, Books on Board, Diesel, Kobo, Fictionwise and Google just to name a few. Amazon didn't always have the lowest prices as Inkmesh (a site that compares ebook prices) will attest. If what Amazon and the others are doing is wrong then the free market will drive them out or force them to raise prices in order to maintain profitability. But competition and the markets will determine that. What Apple has done is to thwart the market by setting artificial prices in collusion with book publishers. It is not only indefensible, but it's illegal.

[Fatalbert]

Originally Posted by sulpfiction

All password protected networks. My printer is about 2 years old, and works great. I believe I had a few issues with it disconnecting when I first got it which had something to do with my AP extreme. The problem was addressed via an update and ever since its been perfect. Are u sure all of ur software is current?

Do you use WEP or WPA password protection? I use WPA, the newer/secure one. Some devices have trouble with WPA, but they really shouldn't since it's not that new of a standard and is way more secure than WEP.

[Fatalbert]

Originally Posted by Rmurphy36

As a consumer, Steve Jobs screwed me with his coercion and still does. Instead of 9.99 books they are up to 15. Once he did that I vowed to never buy through iBooks. I would guess Amazon is making more money now then they did before because almost no new books are back to the 9.99 standard.

I think the $9.99 was just Amazon selling at a loss.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Fatalbert

I think the $9.99 was just Amazon selling at a loss.

Only some books, the whole ebook division was profitable.

[Boston007]

All I know is that before Apple put their paws in this ebook system I would buy ebooks at really great prices, less than paperback prices(which they should be).

Then Apple got involved and prices went straight up, some selling more than paperback.

It's BS and I hope Apple losers.

[phillipduran]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Thank God that corporations do not have the power to defy governments. Not yet anyways.

Power has shifted over the centuries from the church to government. And now it is shifting again, towards the corporation.

If corporations become more powerful than governments, we will regret not having prevented it.

Same can be said about the government. They are doing a pretty bad job of looking after our rights. To much government meddling. Privacy, lack of transparency, drones, restricting gun rights etc.

[mw360]

Originally Posted by stockscalper

I didn't say there was anything wrong with making a profit. But when you conspire with your competitors to fix prices artificially high thereby thwarting the "free market" it's not only wrong, it's illegal. If Apple had done this 40 or 50 years ago they would be prosecuted. I find it ironic that the same crowd that always preaches the virtues of the "free market" are the ones defending Apple's restraint of the free market.

Could you quote where I preach the values of the free market alongside my quote defending Apple? Or are you one of that 'crowd' that doesn't seem to realise the readership of an Internet forum is actually composed of distinct individuals who may express a variety of opinions?

What Amazon was doing is an act of free market capitalism. And they were not alone. Every major ebook store was selling at lower prices including Sony, B&N, Books on Board, Diesel, Kobo, Fictionwise and Google just to name a few. Amazon didn't always have the lowest prices as Inkmesh (a site that compares ebook prices) will attest. If what Amazon and the others are doing is wrong then the free market will drive them out or force them to raise prices in order to maintain profitability. But competition and the markets will determine that. What Apple has done is to thwart the market by setting artificial prices in collusion with book publishers. It is not only indefensible, but it's illegal.

With apologies to the other two posters who's responses were just as good as yours, let me point out that if participants in any system are not allowed to converse and collaborate on mutual goals then that system isn't as free as you like to make it sound. There are vast volumes of laws governing the 'free market'. Many exist to protect the consumers but there are balances to protect the interests of business too.

Most people are consumers so are usually reluctant to acknowledge that consumers are every bit as greedy as the 'corporations'. They want as much stuff as they can get for the cheapest price. Personally I think a large body of anonymous consumers is every bit as ruthless as a large business. Balance is always needed in any complex system and I think in certain industries power is starting to slip too far off balance in favour of low prices. Amazon is engaged in a price war with pretty much everyone which penny punchers revel in while not realising that the inevitable conclusion of a price war is the very thing they oppose: monopoly (or an effective monopoly where sensible combatants agree a truce)


Personally I don't find price fixing necessarily repugnant. On food and clothing and medicine yes, but on luxuries and entertainment, I'm not so sure. Even a rigged market will find pricing that customers are largely willing to pay.

I come at this as someone who would much rather live in a world where there are jobs and prosperity rather than a vast supply of cheap goods. Remember thriving companies with secure profits may not offer much price competition, but they do offer employment competition with in these times actually may be more valuable.